Hi Guest:
Welcome to TRIBE, Toronto's largest and longest running online community. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register on the forum. You can register with your facebook ID or with an email address. Join us!

I don't think you can rule out something quite ridiculous happening between now and the inauguration, that would allow either a) obama to continue as president, or b) killary figuring out some sort of re-count/electoral college loophole.

If there's anything career politicians hate, is losing to non-career politicians.

Trump will be president. I think any Christmas miracle of his ousting will be a nightmare after Christmas because then "democracy in the US has failed" and people will go absolutely ape-shit and you'll see the making of a real revolution. But that won't happen.

What will happen is, once Trump is finished his 4 year term, he will have pissed off 100% of everyone. I feel that he won't even be as far right socially as people suspect, since what he says and what he does are two completely different things. It's like he's a politician but not a politician, but does everything that a politician does, except he does it with more clarity with his in-your-face obscurity.

"I'm going to do this! Oh, but I changed my mind." <-- Trump in 60 seconds.
"I'm going to do this! ...Oh I never promised that." <-- other politicians in 4 years.

I don't think you can rule out something quite ridiculous happening between now and the inauguration, that would allow either a) obama to continue as president, or b) killary figuring out some sort of re-count/electoral college loophole.

If there's anything career politicians hate, is losing to non-career politicians.

For the electors to go ahead and get Clinton in would be far more disruptive than Trump winning the election. It would essentially be validating the "insider political aristocrat" meme and be widely viewed as usurping democratic will. (Yes, even with the "popular vote" thing.)

I don't know what's more predictable now, the fact they hold the election on the first tuesday in November every 4 years or predictions of martial law and "3rd terms" before every 2-two term president reaches their end.

Title: PRESIDENT CLINTON REPORTED TO BE PLANNING TO USE WORLD WAR III TO STAY IN OFFICE!

Subtitle: A New Age newsletter reports a conversation that an actress friend of Bill and Hillary had with Bill at the White House recently. Bill is reportedly to have said that he plans to use World War III as a means to stay in office. While this may be a shock to most, we know the Illuminati has been planning World War III since 1870.

The New World Order is coming! Are you ready? Once you understand what this New World Order really is, and how it is being gradually implemented, you will be able to see it progressing in your daily news!!​

There's always the possibility that the establishment Republicans will try to eject Trump - it's a long shot, but with Mike Pence as the VP, it would put the establishment players in the driver's seat.

All the VP and Congress would have to say is that he isn't fit to serve as president, and with the business conflicts of interest, him going back on his campaign promises or even some of the actions he's taken (or not taken, like the reported neglect of reading his daily intel reports), they would have plenty of ammo to justify their case.

Gordon Adams sees real problems in having at least two and possibly more ex-generals in key national security positions:

The fundamental bias — and a necessary bias — of trained officers is to create a military and to advise civilians about the contribution of that military to national security policy. It is a military mindset, a necessary part of their professional expertise, and borne of years of training and education. But it is not a balanced view of how the United States should engage the world. As such, the military paradigm is likely to be the dominant narrative, to the detriment of broader thinking about statecraft. That paradigm focuses on solutions to tactical and strategic problems but not on the nuances of managing intractable international issues.​

U.S. foreign policy has already become overly militarized during the last fifteen years of warfare, and there is already a very strong bias in favor of (military) action in our policy debates, so it is fair to be concerned that putting former generals in major policymaking roles can only reinforce both. The problem is not that they will necessarily make the U.S. more likely to take military action in each instance, but that they will tend to view all crises and conflicts through the lens that they have been trained to use. The U.S. already gives short shrift to and spends comparatively little on non-military responses to problems overseas, and putting former generals in top positions makes it likely that this won’t change for the better. This is especially true when one of the former generals in question believes that the U.S. is engaged in a “global war” that will last decades and another has a decades-long grudge against another state.

Adams concludes:

Generals — even retired ones — should advise, not make policy. A successful national security policy depends on restoring the civil-military balance that has been lost in the lopsided approach of the last 15 years, one that has clearly failed to the detriment of U.S. security. Our civilian national security institutions need reinforcement to help restore that balance; but with two generals in place and a possible third to come, it is very late in the day to restore this important equity.​

The gunman, Edgar M. Welch, surrendered after telling the police that he had discovered that there were no child sex slaves being held at the pizza place, Comet Ping Pong, despite the lurid fantasies he had read online about a made-up scandal known as “PizzaGate,” which surfaced just before election day.

Those who had worked diligently to spread the hoax — and others who had a hard time accepting that it was obviously not true — had by Sunday night started to claim that Welch himself was part of the plot. He shot up the pizzeria, they said, as a “false flag” attack to distract attention from the (entirely imaginary) scandal they claimed to have uncovered by reading between the lines of hacked emails published by WikiLeaks.

False flag. Planted Comet Pizza Gunman will be used to push for censorship of independent news sources that are not corporate owned

I’ll admit there was something quixotic about the premise behind my intervention, namely the hope that people who have devoted hundreds of hours to spreading falsehoods intended to boost Donald Trump by tarnishing Hillary Clinton would suddenly transform into responsible adults when confronted by the dangerous behavior of a man who mistook the fantasy they peddled for reality.

But watching the campaign of disinformation that lifted Trump to the presidency continue and even accelerate after election day poses an obvious challenge for professional journalists, whose careers are dedicated to the premise that facts matter.

I was not alone. Jake Tapper of CNN, another journalist who understands the power of social media to amplify both genuinely valuable information and baseless rumors concocted by partisan political operatives, took those who spread the conspiracy theory to task.Jake Tapper on Twitter

Flynn’s willingness to adopt the default position of conspiracy theorists — demanding that the rest of us prove that the wild fantasies they have concocted without evidence are not true — matters because he has been aclose aide to his father, who promoted a previous version of the false rumor that Clinton was involved in the sexual abuse of children on the eve of the election.

The senior Flynn, a former intelligence chief, is likely aware of the long history of elaborate hoaxes in political history. Earlier this year, he co-wrote a book with Michael Ledeen, a former Reagan official who was involved in the Iran-Contra deception. Ledeen was once accused of secretly collaborating with an Italian intelligence service that specialized in disinformation campaigns to tarnish the reputation of Jimmy Carter’s brother, Billy, just two weeks before the 1980 presidential election.​

Like President-elect Donald Trump, we vigorously opposed the Iran nuclear agreement, so we sympathize with his promise to “dismantle” it. But we hope that he and his administration will first try to aggressively enforce and thenrenegotiate the deal beyond the confines of the nuclear issue to make it better for us and the world [bold mine-DL].​

Lieberman and Wallace are both hard-liners who aren’t going to be satisfied with any deal that Iran would ever be willing to accept, so this is a fairly transparent call for Trump to wreck the deal that is already working in favor of pursuing an imaginary one that can’t be had. Renegotiating a nonproliferation agreement so that it includes things “beyond the confines of the nuclear issue” is an obvious non-starter for Iran, and attempting to broaden the deal to include other issues is virtually guaranteed to blow up the existing agreement. The entire proposal is obviously being made in bad faith, which is consistent with how most Iran hawks have argued against the deal from the start.

The authors tip their hand from the beginning when they write this:

Before such renegotiations begin, the Trump administration could strengthen its hand by closely consulting with our allies in Iran’s neighborhood — Israel and the Arab states. They were missing from the group that developed and consented to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), as the agreement is formally known. That was wrong, for two main reasons: because the Arab states and Israel are our allies and the Iranians are not, and because the countries in the region have the greatest equities at stake and should have a significant voice in the outcome.​

There are many good reasons why these states were missing from the “group” responsible for negotiating the agreement. None of them belonged to the EU 3 that had previously negotiated with Iran, nor are any of them permanent Security Council members. Including them (especially Israel and Saudi Arabia) in the process presumably would have made Iran abandon the talks, and since these governments have all professed opposition to any achievable deal in the past their involvement would have been worse than useless. Unless one wants diplomacy to fail (as Lieberman and Wallace obviously do), one would not include known saboteurs in the process. Clearly, this wouldn’t strengthen the U.S. position, but would instead ensure that negotiations go nowhere.

They continue with a flat-out lie:

To date, the Iranian regime has made clear it has no intent to honor the spirit or letter of the JCPOA.​

On the contrary, Iran has been complying with the terms of the agreement, and the IAEA has certified that compliance. They say that Iran has exceeded its “allotment of heavy water,” but the IAEA just reported that they are once again under the limit. Whether they are honoring the “spirit” of the agreement is debatable, and depends on what one thinks the “spirit” of it is. Since this accusation is coming from people that are fervently hostile to the agreement and never wanted it to be made, it is a little hard to take this complaint seriously. Every recommendation the authors make shows that they have no interest in honoring the deal, and are looking for ways to blow it up.

“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

Not as happy as Saudi is to have an anti-Iranian Administration come in to help them in their proxy war with Iran.

That's the thing the hillary demonizers never accounted for - whoever won, Saudi was going to end up with good connections. With Trump? They got even better outcome as they are aligned with the House of Saud on seeing Iran as a horrible evil that must be extinguished.